The bloodlust in Christie’s speech against Hillary is not normal. It’s sick.

that would be a crime .I am much more then 50% certain that's why she did it, but proving it requires proving intent

No intent required. She knew as policy she signed, that she could not destroy e-mails. In doing so she violated her oath. Procedure crime in the least without intent required. But go ahead and hang on word meanings. What is the definition of is?
 
Back
Top